If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

30 May 201412.06am

unclegilly

The Jacaranda

Members

Forum Posts: 28

Member Since: 20 January 2014

Offline

162

The quantity being the old boys are still steel wheeling ,soon to be the rolling headstones. and no the quantity versus quality arguement is not the same thing.

30 May 201412.08am

unclegilly

The Jacaranda

Members

Forum Posts: 28

Member Since: 20 January 2014

Offline

163

I like some stones mostly the stuff with Mick Taylor, one of the top 3 British blues men.

30 May 20141.23am

vonbontee

Inside an Apple Orchard in a Letterbox

Rishikesh

Members

Forum Posts: 3597

Member Since: 1 December 2009

Offline

164

Getting kinda sick of this dichotomy...so what if the Stones weren't as good as the Beatles? They were better than most bands have a right to be.

I don't think any Rolling Stones partisans have ever showed up here and started trolling...that'd be kinda interesting.

Give a listen to Aftermath! Released several months before Revolver
and tried a few innovations that even THAT undisputed let's-try-anything masterpiece never got around to! (Not necessarily with such fully successful results, mind you.)

The following people thank vonbontee for this post:

Starr Shine?, Mr. Kite

Someone said 'What were you gonna do when it's all finished,' and I said 'I don't know but it'd be good fun being a DJ.' And since then I've become a DJ, only by word of mouth, you know. SO any minute now you'll read, 'Ringo leaves to become a DJ' but it's not true. - Ringo Starr

30 May 20141.28am

meanmistermustard

Moderator

Members

Reviewers

Moderators

Forum Posts: 21945

Member Since: 1 May 2011

Offline

165

Annadog40 said
Maybe the stones vs Beatles is a quality vs quantity thing?

I doubt it as how much a band releases or how long they are together for should never be a reason for receiving plaudits. Status Quo have been going since the mid-60's and virtually their entire output is utter crap. Cliff Richard has been around the mid-50's and i'd argue all day long that his music is dreadful.

The Beatles material far surpasses that of The Stones through-out the 60's and from the mid-to-late 70's onwards the Stones catalogue is very unstable quality-wise. So for 5 years or so of material you elevate them above The Beatles overall? Eh, no.

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)

"Don't make your love suffer insecurities; Trade the baggage of 'self' to set another one free" ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)

7 June 201412.29am

thisbirdhasflown

Standing in the dock at Southhampton...

Candlestick Park

Members

Forum Posts: 1762

Member Since: 28 May 2014

Offline

166

I think the Stones are okay (they even have their own songwriting partnership). It's just that they trashed themselves and don't stand up to the Beatles. Comparing the Beatles to the Rolling Stones is like comparing butter to lard. They both do the same job, but one is so much better. Take a guess which one.

but anyway back on topic. The Stones were more or less trying to imitate the Beatles for a long time, making me lose most of my respect for them. There isn't a comparison in my opinion, although people tend to think that they are in the same league. The Beatles have singing ability, flexibility, and over-all musical talent that far outweighs the stones. Besides, the Beatles are much better looking, wouldn't you say?

Examiner reports that in a new book called 'The Unreleased Beatles' by Richie Unterberger its revealed that Mick and Keith wrote a song for the Beatles called 'Give Me Your Hand and Hold It Tight' which they rejected.

An excerpt from the article reads

According to Unterberger, Mick Jagger revealed the existence of the song in 1965. “A long time ago, me and Keith wrote something called ‘Give Me Your Hand and Hold It Tight,’ but the Beatles wouldn’t do it. They wrote one for us as well, called ‘Outside 109’ [possibly meaning ‘One After 909
,’ which the Beatles had written years before and recorded at EMI in March 1963, though they didn’t release their own version until Let It Be
]. We said we wouldn’t do the song until they did ours. So nothing happened on either side. We’re still waiting.” Despite Jagger's shaky memory and the fact the song was turned down by the Beatles, it was released by Teddy Green in 1964.

More at the link.

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)

"Don't make your love suffer insecurities; Trade the baggage of 'self' to set another one free" ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)

2 December 201412.18am

Bongo

Somewhere In Time

Candlestick Park

Members

Forum Posts: 1582

Member Since: 28 March 2014

Offline

174

Mimi said

The Stones were more or less trying to imitate the Beatles for a long time, making me lose most of my respect for them. There isn't a comparison in my opinion, although people tend to think that they are in the same league. The Beatles have singing ability, flexibility, and over-all musical talent that far outweighs the stones.

I don't think the Stones tried an any way to be like the Beatles. The Stones were a Blues band, and the Beatles were (Pop) Rock & Roll. Yes, all bands that came out of the UK dressed in matching suits, but that was just the times. Soon after, the Stones stopped wearing matching suits while the Beatles did it right up until their last Concert in '66.

But ya, obviously the Beatles out talented all other bands including the Stones.

BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!

2 December 20143.54am

Necko

Earth

Apple rooftop

Members

Forum Posts: 7831

Member Since: 10 November 2010

Offline

175

I really don't see any point in comparing the two bands. I love both bands. I could say more, but I'll just let Mick Jagger do the talking.

I really don't see any point in comparing the two bands. I love both bands.

Same. I haven't owned much by the Stones in the past except for compilation albums and plan on changing that very soon. The documentary Crossfire Hurricane is in my rack at home and it is fabulous - highly recommended. My only wish about the Stones is that Mick would have have been a better singer.

To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.

2 December 20144.14pm

parlance

Slaggers

Apple rooftop

Members

Forum Posts: 7111

Member Since: 8 November 2012

Offline

177

I've always wondered why there are rivalries between fans of certain bands, having grown up in the 80s when teeny bopper magazines encouraged you to like one band over another. I suppose loyalty fueled sales. But it's strange to me when grown adults still adhere to the idea that you can't love more than one band. I have a friend who won't like the Beatles because she's a Monkees fans, and I want to tell her, "you know they were friends, right? And this rivalry, if it ever existed, was only relevant 50 years ago?"

To stay on topic, I guess part of it is about shaping identity, i.e. seeming tougher/edgy because you favor The Rolling Stones.

parlance

Beware of sadness. It can hit you. It can hurt you. Make you sore and what is more, that is not what you are here for. - George

Check out my fan video for Paul's song "Appreciate" at Vimeo or YouTube.

30 December 20146.07am

The John

Fixing Hole's by a Hill inhabited by a Fool

Royal Command Performance

Members

Forum Posts: 222

Member Since: 22 November 2014

Offline

178

Gosh. I really love both of these bands. Lately i have been getting into The Rolling Stones l. I just bought Exile On Main Street by them and i am saving up for the Rolling Stones' box set. I Love them both but The Beatles win just slightly.

Now i can compare my Favorite things about them (Remember this is just my opinion)

Sgt. Pepper
> Their Satanic Majesties Request (Havent heard all of it so this is what i will say for now)

Influences

Buddy Holly = Muddy Waters

Influenced

Oasis > Very Minor Bands

Lets Rack up the points

The Beatles : 7 The Rolling Stones: 4

I Think that Rolling Stone should do a cover story of The Rolling Stones covering "Like a Rolling Stone" or if a Type of Beetle was named after The Beatles.

30 December 20148.01am

trcanberra

Oz

Apple rooftop

Members

Reviewers

Forum Posts: 6042

Member Since: 29 August 2013

Offline

179

parlance said
I've always wondered why there are rivalries between fans of certain bands, having grown up in the 80s when teeny bopper magazines encouraged you to like one band over another. I suppose loyalty fueled sales. But it's strange to me when grown adults still adhere to the idea that you can't love more than one band. I have a friend who won't like the Beatles because she's a Monkees fans, and I want to tell her, "you know they were friends, right? And this rivalry, if it ever existed, was only relevant 50 years ago?"

To stay on topic, I guess part of it is about shaping identity, i.e. seeming tougher/edgy because you favor The Rolling Stones.

parlance

Just show your friend that pizza commercial with Ringo and the Monkees

==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==

30 December 20142.01pm

Billy Rhythm

Shea Stadium

Members

Forum Posts: 917

Member Since: 22 December 2013

Offline

180

Annadog40 said
Maybe the stones vs Beatles is a quality vs quantity thing?

Could say the same thing about any "John vs. Paul's Solo Works" discussion...:-)

Buy my book!

The Bowie Bible

Like David Bowie? Of course you do. Don't miss our sister site, the Bowie Bible, now live!

Can buy me love

The Beatles Bible is run for the love of anything and everything to do with The Beatles. If you've learned something new about the band and wish to show your appreciation, why not make a small donation via PayPal? It'll help with server costs, research material etc...